Welcome

Welcome to the POZ/AIDSmeds Community Forums, a round-the-clock discussion area for people with HIV/AIDS, their friends/family/caregivers, and
others concerned about HIV/AIDS. Click on the links below to browse our various forums; scroll down for a glance at the most recent posts; or join in the
conversation yourself by registering on the left side of this page.

Privacy Warning: Please realize that these forums are open to all, and are fully searchable via Google and other search engines. If you are HIV positive
and disclose this in our forums, then it is almost the same thing as telling the whole world (or at least the World Wide Web). If this concerns you, then do not use a
username or avatar that are self-identifying in any way. We do not allow the deletion of anything you post in these forums, so think before you post.

The information shared in these forums, by moderators and members, is designed to complement, not replace, the relationship between an individual and his/her own
physician.

All members of these forums are, by default, not considered to be licensed medical providers. If otherwise, users must clearly define themselves as such.

Forums members must behave at all times with respect and honesty. Posting guidelines, including time-out and banning policies, have been established by the moderators
of these forums. Click here for “Am I Infected?” posting guidelines. Click here for posting guidelines pertaining to all other POZ/AIDSmeds community forums.

We ask all forums members to provide references for health/medical/scientific information they provide, when it is not a personal experience being discussed. Please
provide hyperlinks with full URLs or full citations of published works not available via the Internet. Additionally, all forums members must post information which are
true and correct to their knowledge.

Show me where anyone has "excused" those who infect others. I really cannot read that.

And it is not a "bleeding-heart liberal" attitude that promotes personal responsibility. If anything, it's a fairly traditional one.

Logged

"Many people, especially in the gay community, turn to oral sex as a safer alternative in the age of AIDS. And with HIV rates rising, people need to remember that oral sex is safer sex. It's a reasonable alternative."

Mtd - So you are advocating this as part of the acceptance stage? Ie that concentrating on the victimhood aspect prevents one from moving on with their life? That may be true - but I also think it's important to not lose sight of the responsibility HiV+ people have toward the HIV-. Playing Russian roulette with lives of others is indefensible.

I personally think the best way to halt is to amp up the testing (as well as enforce the laws in question). I believe that is the most effective way to deal with it. That said - I think this guy is a bad apple (hence the news story) and most hiv+ would not do this.

Oh - just to clear up - I have absolutely no personal involvement in this issue. I was given HIV by someone who didn't know they were positive, I actually gave the person the bad news myself. If an individual knowingly gave me the virus there would be [NJ accent] very severe consequences for them to face.

-----Jkin - well if one says that the blame is 50-50 than it removes half of the responsibility from the offender. That sounds like partly excusing or at least removing culpability.

I see your point how one should take responsibility for his actions. And having unprotected sex can lead to a virus. BUT - that would be true in case of your partner not knowing (as it happened to me). If the partner knows and knowingly infects you - I think that changes the equation.

What would you say to someone who is HIV+ and donates blood? Let's say somehow his blood enters the blood bank (test didn't work).

Mtd - So you are advocating this as part of the acceptance stage? Ie that concentrating on the victimhood aspect prevents one from moving on with their life? That may be true - but I also think it's important to not lose sight of the responsibility HiV+ people have toward the HIV-. Playing Russian roulette with lives of others is indefensible.

I'm advocating it as common fucking sense. But yes, coming to terms with an HIV diagnosis is much easier if one avoids the all too tempting desire to blame others for what is really one's own failing.

Looking for someone to blame is ultimately pointless. There are better more constructive ways to expend such personal energy.

"I'm advocating it as common fucking sense. But yes, coming to terms with an HIV diagnosis is much easier if one avoids the all too tempting desire to blame others for what is really one's own failing.

Looking for someone to blame is ultimately pointless. There are better more constructive ways to expend such personal energy."

Then we are talking about different things. I was talking about the acrobat who infected Australian women. You veered into one's personal journey of living with the disease. It may have been my fault for recognizing that earlier.

"I suspect that this is not true."

Not sure how. If you are implying that I'm blaming someone else for my getting sick - I am not. Here I actually take full responsibility - the person didn't know they had it. I fucked up.

Jkin - well if one says that the blame is 50-50 than it removes half of the responsibility from the offender. That sounds like partly excusing or at least removing culpability.

It's neither excusing nor removing culpability, what he did was wrong, but saying it was all his fault isn't going to help these women (note the last i read they had only found one) come to terms with the change in thier reality.

I see your point how one should take responsibility for his actions. And having unprotected sex can lead to a virus. BUT - that would be true in case of your partner not knowing (as it happened to me). If the partner knows and knowingly infects you - I think that changes the equation.

Different ballgame, but unfortunatley with the same result, ergo wrap it up every time

What would you say to someone who is HIV+ and donates blood? Let's say somehow his blood enters the blood bank (test didn't work).

There will always be the danger of one bad apple who tries it on, but the greater danger is people gay bi or st8 who don't test reguarly, don't know thier own staus and give blood. However the tests are very reliable, and one hell of a lot more accurate than a vague I'm straight, so i don't need to test but i know i'm neg

"I'm advocating it as common fucking sense. But yes, coming to terms with an HIV diagnosis is much easier if one avoids the all too tempting desire to blame others for what is really one's own failing.

Looking for someone to blame is ultimately pointless. There are better more constructive ways to expend such personal energy."

Then we are talking about different things. I was talking about the acrobat who infected Australian women. You veered into one's personal journey of living with the disease. It may have been my fault for recognizing that earlier.

No we're talking about the same thing. The acrobat's case serves as an exemplar of what I consider to be the issue of apportioning blame rather than doing anything concrete about educating the community about HIV transmission.

Was I naive? Yep. Did I trust the wrong guy? You betcha. Was I a victim? NO. I refused that term. And by NOT being a victim, I found the strength to stay alive for almost twenty years, back when HIV really WAY a death sentence.

It is a strategy I highly recommend.

100% with you on that.

On May 8th and May 9th, 2009, I slept with someone whom I thought I trusted and who knew his status. I was dumb enough to believe it when he said "I'm negative." His words at the end of the sexual act hinted that something was up (he said "don't worry about me, worry about yourself"). Less than three weeks later, a year to this day, I began the most ghastly acute infection process known to humanity (well, that's all relative). Soon enough I became a pozzie.

So yes, he lied. It could even be argued that what he did was morally incorrect or whatever you want to dub it. Still, the fact remains that I was the one who made the incredibly fucking stupid decision of having unprotected sex with that man. I assume my 50% responsibility in this goddamned debacle. Did I ever think about blaming him or reporting him to some authority? FUCK NO; I am no angel (I had been quite the whore before, but condoms were always part of the equation). I did what I did and I unfortunately paid for that mistake.

Being honest with oneself: priceless when it comes to the HIV process.

People need to stop eating what the chicken pecks and put away the stupid victim act. It simply disgusts me.

[edited 'cause me grammar stinks when I'm pissed off]

« Last Edit: May 26, 2010, 09:25:11 PM by Rev. Moon »

Logged

"I have tried hard--but life is difficult, and I am a very useless person. I can hardly be said to have an independent existence. I was just a screw or a cog in the great machine I called life, and when I dropped out of it I found I was of no use anywhere else."

In psychology, Stockholm syndrome is a term used to describe a paradoxical psychological phenomenon wherein hostages express adulation and have positive feelings towards their captors that appear irrational in light of the danger or risk endured by the victims.[1][2] The FBI?s Hostage Barricade Database System shows that roughly 27% of victims show evidence of Stockholm syndrome.[3] The syndrome is named after the Norrmalmstorg robbery of Kreditbanken at Norrmalmstorg in Stockholm, in which the bank robbers held bank employees hostage from August 23 to August 28, 1973. In this case, the victims became emotionally attached to their captors, and even defended them after they were freed from their six-day ordeal. The term "Stockholm Syndrome" was coined by the criminologist and psychiatrist Nils Bejerot, who assisted the police during the robbery, and referred to the syndrome in a news broadcast.[4] It was originally defined by psychiatrist Frank Ochberg to aid the management of hostage situations.[5]

In psychology, Stockholm syndrome is a term used to describe a paradoxical psychological phenomenon wherein hostages express adulation and have positive feelings towards their captors that appear irrational in light of the danger or risk endured by the victims.[1][2] The FBI?s Hostage Barricade Database System shows that roughly 27% of victims show evidence of Stockholm syndrome.[3] The syndrome is named after the Norrmalmstorg robbery of Kreditbanken at Norrmalmstorg in Stockholm, in which the bank robbers held bank employees hostage from August 23 to August 28, 1973. In this case, the victims became emotionally attached to their captors, and even defended them after they were freed from their six-day ordeal. The term "Stockholm Syndrome" was coined by the criminologist and psychiatrist Nils Bejerot, who assisted the police during the robbery, and referred to the syndrome in a news broadcast.[4] It was originally defined by psychiatrist Frank Ochberg to aid the management of hostage situations.[5]

Perhaps I'm missing something but what's that got to do with anything??

Well, there are a few "victims" among the HIV+ set, and if anyone doesn't like that fact, please don't insult everyone with your definitions of healthy acceptance.

Transmission through rape - victim.Total betrayal of rules in a committed relationship where the unsafe sex has been negotiated to those rules - victim. I am sure there are other cases, too.

I agree it may not help the HIV+ person to wear victim on his sleeve. I'm seeing that the pariah status and death sentence of an HIV diagnosis are constructions you need not accept, so "victim" of what. A person raped is actually a victim of violence. HIV is a nasty bonus. A person who is betrayed so horribly in a relationship is a victim of a horrible relationship.

Humans are complex creatures. I don't think it helps at all to go around saying ALL HIV+ people "deserve" or are responsible for what they got" for one reason or another. I think some people are just going about their human lives and can be run over by the HIV bus and sometimes that bus is driven by a particularly despicable character.

Logged

“From each, according to his ability; to each, according to his need” 1875 K Marx

I agree it may not help the HIV+ person to wear victim on his sleeve. I'm seeing that the pariah status and death sentence of an HIV diagnosis are constructions you need not accept, so "victim" of what. A person raped is actually a victim of violence. HIV is a nasty bonus. A person who is betrayed so horribly in a relationship is a victim of a horrible relationship.

Miss Meech, did I say anything about victims of rape or betrayed partners in a committed relationship? Uhmmm... no. So please misquote someone else.

Humans are complex creatures. I don't think it helps at all to go around saying ALL HIV+ people "deserve" or are responsible for what they got" for one reason or another.

To quote Ann, "excuse me, but fuck you." I was referring about my own situation when I said that I got what "I deserved" for being irresponsible about my sex life. If you want to use some other euphemism go ahead and knock yourself out. Everyone else may go ahead and feel whatever way they want about their infection. Still, I stand by my words that it is irresponsible and deplorable for anyone who decided to ride it cowboy style at some point with some random trick or partner and come in here playing victim. Sorry, it does not fly with me.

In psychology, Stockholm syndrome is a term used to describe a paradoxical psychological phenomenon wherein hostages express adulation and have positive feelings towards their captors that appear irrational in light of the danger or risk endured by the victims.[1][2] The FBI?s Hostage Barricade Database System shows that roughly 27% of victims show evidence of Stockholm syndrome.[3] The syndrome is named after the Norrmalmstorg robbery of Kreditbanken at Norrmalmstorg in Stockholm, in which the bank robbers held bank employees hostage from August 23 to August 28, 1973. In this case, the victims became emotionally attached to their captors, and even defended them after they were freed from their six-day ordeal. The term "Stockholm Syndrome" was coined by the criminologist and psychiatrist Nils Bejerot, who assisted the police during the robbery, and referred to the syndrome in a news broadcast.[4] It was originally defined by psychiatrist Frank Ochberg to aid the management of hostage situations.[5]

Sorry, mate. This does not apply to me. I do not defend that man nor do I harbor any positive feelings towards him. I simply can't hate him. I accept responsibility for my infection, take the necessary steps to remain healthy, accept my life with HIV, and move the fuck on. Simple as that.

Logged

"I have tried hard--but life is difficult, and I am a very useless person. I can hardly be said to have an independent existence. I was just a screw or a cog in the great machine I called life, and when I dropped out of it I found I was of no use anywhere else."

Maybe he's trying to tell us we are all secretly in love with our infector. Dunno though..

must be a deeply buried secret then

I'm not in love with this mystery man, but then again even if I knew who it was i wouldn't take him to court.Shit happens, all we can do is pick up the peices and try and make the best of the situation

Rev, I was referring to the argument in general. The you was not you, the you was one.

Then I apologise for my transgressions (and still stand by my general point

Logged

"I have tried hard--but life is difficult, and I am a very useless person. I can hardly be said to have an independent existence. I was just a screw or a cog in the great machine I called life, and when I dropped out of it I found I was of no use anywhere else."

I dont have a problem with your point Rev. I have a problem when the general argument among HIV+ people is that all HIV+ are responsible for their infection. Its far too much moralising and conjecture than is called for. We don't know shit about other peoples experiences. We dont know shit about what happened between this guy and the women "he" "infected". I am all for anyone assuming their current situation and making the best of it.

Logged

“From each, according to his ability; to each, according to his need” 1875 K Marx

I dont have a problem with your point Rev. I have a problem when the general argument among HIV+ people is that all HIV+ are responsible for their infection. Its far too much moralising and conjecture than is called for. We don't know shit about other peoples experiences. We dont know shit about what happened between this guy and the women "he" "infected". I am all for anyone assuming their current situation and making the best of it.

That is not the general argument. On more than one occasion we have qualified our various positions on personal responbility.

Mecch so your saying we're not responsible for ourselves, actions and consequences??

Obviously not, EVERY PERSON is not ALWAYS "responsible" for events and consequences in this world. There are evil and sick people around who will do othes wrong. In the case of HIV, its not so easy to prove intent to harm, nor would it be easy to prove someone's state of "victimness". Some states write it all out and its often ridiculous definitions. Not always though.

Logged

“From each, according to his ability; to each, according to his need” 1875 K Marx

Obviously not, EVERY PERSON is not ALWAYS "responsible" for events and consequences in this world. In the case of HIV, its not so easy to prove intent to harm, nor would it be easy to prove someone's state of "victimness". Some states write it all out and its often ridiculous definitions. Not always though.

That's why Ann mentioned the rape victims being excluded from responsibility. If that's not what you meant, who cares what the other person's intentions are, the fact still falls on personal responsibility to protect oneself. You bring up a good point though,

That's why Ann mentioned the rape victims being excluded from responsibility. If that's not what you meant, who cares what the other person's intentions are, the fact still falls on personal responsibility to protect oneself. You bring up a good point though,

"There are evil and sick people around who will do othes wrong."

And this is all the more reason why people should protect themselves.

Thanks Skeebs, was looking through this ans realised you had already said what i was about to post.

What, if any, consequences do you feel there should be for people who know they are HIV+, lie about their status and refuse to use condoms?

Well New York state is looking to lock such a person up for good.

BUFFALO, N.Y. ? A former drug dealer who infected at least 13 women with the AIDS virus should stand trial on New York state's efforts to have him committed indefinitely as a dangerous sex offender, a judge ruled Thursday.

BUFFALO, N.Y. ? A former drug dealer who infected at least 13 women with the AIDS virus should stand trial on New York state's efforts to have him committed indefinitely as a dangerous sex offender, a judge ruled Thursday.

There is so much more to this than can be encapsulated in a single sentence. While it does not bode well for us that any disease whose spread requires two participants to propogate itself be punishable by law, the egregious infections by the guy in the previously linked article IS criminal. If I infected 13 people with this virus I would fully expect to be punished for it. The other case over which this thread was started is something I would be curious to hear the exact details of, however I'm under the impression that he simply could not come to terms with his positive status and the stigma attached to it so rather than using a condom or disclosing to the women he was sleeping with he summarily infected at least one of them. He could easily have prevented her infection had he simply been adult enough to utilize a condom. She also could have prevented her infection but I do feel that the burden of guilt in this case falls on the party who had knowledge of the disease prior to the sexual act.

PS: This has nothing to do with my own infection which I fully take responsibility for, so please don't try to link this back to me playing the victim which seems to be the prevalent thought here.

I can't wait till they bring the first charges against a person for recklessly causing grievous bodily harm by coming to work with swine flu and 'deliberately' infecting hundreds of others, some of whom die within days of infection.

I dont see it coming to that at all. Any smart judge would come up with the novel punishment of criminal charges for the grevious bodily harm, therapy in prison, and maybe mandatory HAART with testing for repeat offenders. Like the neutering of sex criminals. A genuine sex criminal who is criminal because he (she) can't help but charm dozens of people and transmit HIV, well I guess this must be so rare that I wouldn't have qualms about mandatory HAART with monitoring. And rehabilitation so the person could understand how fucking anti-social and pathological it is to spread serious diseases through willful actions!

By the way, Switzerland readied their municipal bomb shelters to quarantine people with Swine flu and, before that, Aviary flu. But finally it wasn't necessary. They also pocketed billions selling medicine against the scare.

Im sure any country with a pharmaceutical industry would be very interested indeed in mandatory HAART for certain anti-social actions - deliberate transmission.

Oh, for all the dense, I'm not advocated this. Just like i didnt like Buckley's proposal. Just throwing it out there.

It DOES seem stupid to let a repeat HIV "transmitter" remain untreated, under the guise that it removes his human right to force medicine. He didnt respect the rights of others, so.....

« Last Edit: May 27, 2010, 12:22:27 PM by mecch »

Logged

“From each, according to his ability; to each, according to his need” 1875 K Marx

They wont get tested because if the are positive and have infected people it will lead to criminal charges?

I think maybe you mean the latter.

In fact, you are morally NOT cleared, automatically, if you don't know you are HIV+ and infect another. Maybe, maybe not. There is something called negligent ignorance. "You should know that you are HIV- before you have risky sex."Also, I seem to recall there being charges when people had risky histories and willfully refused to test.

Its all a rat fuck, in my opinion.

Logged

“From each, according to his ability; to each, according to his need” 1875 K Marx

That means, you bring an umbrella now, as preparation for something that might happen. Rain.

We will have a picnic, unless it rains.That means you plan to have a picnic. But if it rains, you wont have the picnic.

We will eat inside in case it rains. That means: if it rains you will eat inside. If it doesn't rain, we assume you will not.

He will not get tested unless he is guilty. That means, only when he is guilty, will he get tested. First guilty, then tested. This isn't possible in what we were talking about. Because he would have to be tested before a trial to prove he was HIV+ and thus responsbile for something.

He will not get tested in case he is guilty. This means, he will not get tested, because he fears he would be HIV+ and thus guilty. But this doesnt make sense in our scenario either, because then he did not transmit with intention to transmit. Thus he would be guilty of nothing.

Logged

“From each, according to his ability; to each, according to his need” 1875 K Marx

What, if any, consequences do you feel there should be for people who know they are HIV+, lie about their status and refuse to use condoms?

If an (allegedly) negative person is interested in fucking a person who refuses to use condoms (regardless of what that person claims about their hiv status), then the (allegedly) negative person should REFUSE to fuck them. Then there are no consequences. See how that works?

If the poz person refuses to take no for an answer and rapes the (allegedly) negative person, then the poz person should be tried for rape, with a more severe sentence being handed down if the person is judged guilty of not only rape, but also hiv transmission.

"...health will finally be seen not as a blessing to be wished for, but as a human right to be fought for." Kofi Annan

Nymphomaniac: a woman as obsessed with sex as an average man. Mignon McLaughlin

HIV is certainly character-building. It's made me see all of the shallow things we cling to, like ego and vanity. Of course, I'd rather have a few more T-cells and a little less character. Randy Shilts

If an (allegedly) negative person is interested in fucking a person who refuses to use condoms (regardless of what that person claims about their hiv status), then the (allegedly) negative person should REFUSE to fuck them. Then there are no consequences. See how that works?

"...health will finally be seen not as a blessing to be wished for, but as a human right to be fought for." Kofi Annan

Nymphomaniac: a woman as obsessed with sex as an average man. Mignon McLaughlin

HIV is certainly character-building. It's made me see all of the shallow things we cling to, like ego and vanity. Of course, I'd rather have a few more T-cells and a little less character. Randy Shilts

If an (allegedly) negative person is interested in fucking a person who refuses to use condoms (regardless of what that person claims about their hiv status), then the (allegedly) negative person should REFUSE to fuck them. Then there are no consequences. See how that works?

If the poz person refuses to take no for an answer and rapes the (allegedly) negative person, then the poz person should be tried for rape, with a more severe sentence being handed down if the person is judged guilty of not only rape, but also hiv transmission.

I really don't understand why you refuse to acknowledge the moral and legal obligation upon the HIV+.

How about this analogy - a con man who lies to an old person and steals their money by pretending to be a friend of his granddaughter who is in trouble. Your answer seems to be - it's the responsibility of the conned to check references and make sure they are not taken advantage of. That may be prudent - but our society still condemns and incarcerates those who cheat and lie.Most of human interactions are predicated on trust. How would society operate if EVERY transaction was put in question? It simply doesn't work. Two people who are about to have sex (usually) like each other. They have a connection. It's only natural to expect their to be trust.

Your idea is predicated on assumption that nobody can be trusted - that's just not how things work.

Your idea is predicated on assumption that nobody can be trusted - that's just not how things work.

NOPE. Sorry. My idea is predicated on the assumption that yes, some people lie and cannot be trusted, but trusted people MAY NOT ACCURATELY KNOW THEIR HIV STATUS. You cannot tell someone about something you do not know you have.

You know, kinda like the woman from whom you acquired YOUR infection. Kinda like the man from whom I acquired MY infection.

I should have insisted on using condoms. I didn't. I'm responsible for my own infection and I would feel that way even if I'd found out that the person involved KNEW their status and LIED.

My health is my own responsibility and I refuse to lay that responsibility on anyone else's doorstep. It's mine and mine alone.

"...health will finally be seen not as a blessing to be wished for, but as a human right to be fought for." Kofi Annan

Nymphomaniac: a woman as obsessed with sex as an average man. Mignon McLaughlin

HIV is certainly character-building. It's made me see all of the shallow things we cling to, like ego and vanity. Of course, I'd rather have a few more T-cells and a little less character. Randy Shilts